Facts are in-Aryan Invasion Of Indus is a Lie!

[Jainarayan]

I love reading them.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Riverwolf;2951069]No, they're not, not really. The Proto-Indo-Europeans were NOT native to Europe. It's thought they lived somewhere around the Black Sea, which is in Asia Minor.

Where near the Black sea?

Any written record of this, from these people.

They're just called "Indo-European". Admittedly, it is a bit of an inaccurate term. But it doesn't speak to any sort of European-supremacy that I can see.

Heck, as far as I'm concerned, the fact that Hinduism, while itself native to India, has elements from other Indo-European religions, makes it all the more special and important.

Well do you know that the proposition that Aryans were a Race is directly attributed to the belief of the supremacy of the European Race, who invaded the poor black aboriginal of India, destroying them and writing the Vedas.

That's not how this works. There's more indication that it's not native there than that it is.

Did you know Aryavarta included Asia minor to Indonesia in its borders.

Nor do historians claim that.

They did in the past.

"Aryans" is really just a shorthand (read: lazy) way of referring to "speakers of Aryan languages," i.e., whoever spoke them, regardless of "race." Unfortunately, this bit of scholarly laziness has led to one of the biggest popular historical misconceptions in recent history.

Arya Language means, Language of the noble people. If you are a noble Englishmen then you speak Aryan Language, if you are a Noble Chinese, then you speak Aryan Language.

Is this what they mean when they say "Aryan Language",.

You know, when a website has a tagline like "Unleash the Legend Within", that just screams "Give us your money!" to me. Not very trustworthy.

You don't have to pay to read.

Honestly, I question the motives of a website that claims to have "True Knowledge." Again, it screams "Give us your money!"

What is wrong with satya Vidya?

[/I]Stop right there, and see above comment. The term "Indo-Europeans" does not refer to any one group.

Are you sure, so it does not refer to the Aryan Language or the group of people that speak this language.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

A bit of minor research (...i.e., checking wikipedia, so take it as you will, the page has a trustworthy rating of 3.5 out of 5) seems to indicate that most scientists, or at least geologists and biologists, were very much aware that the earth was FAR older than 6,000 years in the 18th and 19th centuries. I'll definitely need to look more into it, but if it's true, then these estimated dates would not necessarily have been given by Christians who thought the earth is only 6,000 years old, which never sat well with me.

Maybe they did but I know that Max Muellar believed in Biblical creationism and the Tower of Babel was the bases for his study of the Indo-European languages. He was also opposed to the ideas of Darwin. Read up these guys you will be surprised.

 

[Jainarayan]

Where near the Black sea?

Any written record of this, from these people.

No written record but a preponderance of descendant words referring to the flora and fauna from the region. Many words descended from PIE refer to flora and fauna not found elsewhere. Moreover, horses were an important part of PIE culture. These horses were the wild horses of the central Asian steppes.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

No written record but a preponderance of descendant words referring to the flora and fauna from the region. Many words descended from PIE refer to flora and fauna not found elsewhere. Moreover, horses were an important part of PIE culture. These horses were the wild horses of the central Asian steppes.

I don't really think this is a non-bias site still an interesting read on the horse subject.

http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/horse-debate.html

 

[Riverwolf]

Maybe they did but I know that Max Muellar believed in Biblical creationism and the Tower of Babel was the bases for his study of the Indo-European languages. He was also opposed to the ideas of Darwin. Read up these guys you will be surprised.

Is there any indication that Muller is a good representative for all historians, scholars, and linguists interested in this subject?

If Sanskrit was really not an Indo-European language, its place in that group would have been discarded long ago. "These people" are constantly checking and rechecking the ideas taught to them.

 

[Riverwolf]

Where near the Black sea?

That's still up for debate, but the two main ideas put the people either to the North or South of it. There is a chance that their homeland is currently underwater, as the Black Sea was not as big as it is now before the end of the last Ice Age.

Well do you know that the proposition that Aryans were a Race is directly attributed to the belief of the supremacy of the European Race, who invaded the poor black aboriginal of India, destroying them and writing the Vedas.

I can relate to that sentiment more than I'll bet you realize.

According to who?

Did you know Aryavarta included Asia minor to Indonesia in its borders.

So... Persia?

They did in the past.

But they don't now, and it's contemporary historians whom we look to.

Arya Language means, Language of the noble people. If you are a noble Englishmen then you speak Aryan Language, if you are a Noble Chinese, then you speak Aryan Language.

Based on what?

Is this what they mean when they say "Aryan Language",.

Unlikely.

You don't have to pay to read.

How many advertisements are on the site?

What is wrong with satya Vidya?

Satya Vidya is not so easy to come by as to be summarized on a small internet website.

Are you sure, so it does not refer to the Aryan Language or the group of people that speak this language.

The language group "Indo-Aryan" refers almost specifically to Vedic Sanskrit and its offshoots. Indo-Aryan is part of the Indo-Iranian group, which is part of the Indo-European groups.

 

[Jainarayan]

I haven't read the whole thing yet, but it looks interesting:

The horse must therefore have been brought into India around 1500 BCE by the invading Aryans, who used its speed to crushing advantage in order to subdue the native, ox-driven populations. This line of reasoning is regarded as so evident and foolproof that it is taken to be the final word on the issue; as a result, we find it confidently repeated in reference books
and history textbooks dealing with India’s prehistory.

AIT and Ancient Aliens proponents are really beginning to **** me off! As I said earlier in the thread, it's an all-or-nothing proposition for movement into or out of the Indian subcontinent, both from AIT and OIT theorists. The AIT has always used the terms 'aryan' incorrectly, and 'invasion'. I can accept migrations back and forth in trickles over a long time span.

As has been pointed out in articles against the AIT, where are the weapons and accoutrements of war and invasion at Harappa and Mohenjodaro? Nowhere. There are cultural similarities spanning from Anatolia (the Hittites and chariots) to central Asia to India. I think language, culture and religion spread peacefully and peaceably both ways.

People have been migrating and sharing culture and language for milennia. For example, I hardly think that when northeast Asians crossed the Bering land bridge into the Americas, it was an invasion. It was a migration that took thousands of years. We think in such puny time scales, but a lot can happen in just 3,500 years. The Old Testament comes to mind... originates about 1500 BCE.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Riverwolf;2952146]That's still up for debate, but the two main ideas put the people either to the North or South of it. There is a chance that their homeland is currently underwater, as the Black Sea was not as big as it is now before the end of the last Ice Age.

I think even that is up for debate.

I can relate to that sentiment more than I'll bet you realize.

According to who?

Max Muller, Thomas Babington Macaulay, Colonel Boden, Menier Williams, Albert Weber, WD Whitney to name a few.

So... Persia?

And....yes

But they don't now, and it's contemporary historians whom we look to.

They did

Based on what?

Yaskas Nirukta, Nigantu, Brahmanas, Panini grammer, and other works, in Iranian Arya means noble.

Unlikely.

Based on what

How many advertisements are on the site?

Ive been a long time follower of this site, what they write are not funded by some big organisation, don't blame them if they lack funds to keep the website open.

Satya Vidya is not so easy to come by as to be summarized on a small internet website.

based on what?

The language group "Indo-Aryan" refers almost specifically to Vedic Sanskrit and its offshoots. Indo-Aryan is part of the Indo-Iranian group, which is part of the Indo-European groups.

Ahh, so it is a group.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think even that is up for debate.

That the Black Sea was smaller at one point? No... pun intended, but that's pretty well set in stone! :biglaugh:

Max Muller, Thomas Babington Macaulay, Colonel Boden, Menier Williams, Albert Weber, WD Whitney to name a few.

So, they've actually said so? Where?

And....yes

Okay.

Thing is, the northernmost part of ancient Persia was VERY close to where the Proto-Indo-Europeans were thought to have lived.

Plus, Persia didn't include South India.

They did

Well, we don't listen to the historians of the past; we listen to the ones today. A hundred years from now, they should likewise ignore current ones and listen to historians then.

Yaskas Nirukta, Nigantu, Brahmanas, Panini grammer, and other works, in Iranian Arya means noble.

I know Arya means noble; I was referring to your interpretation.

Based on what

Aryan language pretty much refers either to Vedic Sanskrit itself, from what I understand.

Ive been a long time follower of this site, what they write are not funded by some big organisation, don't blame them if they lack funds to keep the website open.

I don't. Still, when I see things like "Unleash the Power Within", that sends all kinds of red flags, especially when the "donate" button is HUGE, impossible to miss, with the tagline "Support the cause". This is especially jarring when an internet entertainer has a donation bar, but it's small and tucked away in the corner.

I don't trust websites that do that.

based on what?

Satya Vidya "True Knowledge" is, in itself, a deep concept that would probably take a few essays to explain. In addition, there'd need to be books' worth of essays explaining what Satya Vidya is not, and why.

In addition, different people are going to have different ideas as to what Satya Vidya is. Sure, you could say "whatever's in the Vedas", but they were composed in a language that's so old that it's literally impossible to translate into English accurately.

Ahh, so it is a group.

Yup.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Is there any indication that Muller is a good representative for all historians, scholars, and linguists interested in this subject?

Historically more then a few had his beliefs in this area. This is how the dates were developed.

If Sanskrit was really not an Indo-European language, its place in that group would have been discarded long ago.

What I believe about the Early History of Hinduism:

-I have no reason to believe Sanskrit is not an Indo-European language.
-I do not believe the old Vedic timelines set down by the early Orientalist.
-I do believe that Hinduism is indigenous to India.
-I don't know much. Of the scholars I have read on this subject. I tend to think Klaus K. Klostermaier (who clearly rejects AIT) and Gavin Flood from Oxford, (Who gives all sides of the argument) makes the most sense.
-I believe system of thought of the early Orientalism smacks of Imperialist attitudes. These bias repeatedly-surface in the field of Indian studies.
-AIT has been shown to be false.
-AMT is just a hypothesis.

 

[Jainarayan]

Historically more then a few had his beliefs in this area. This is how the dates were developed.

It goes to your point "I believe system of thought of the early Orientalism smacks of Imperialist attitudes."

What I believe about the Early History of Hinduism:

-I have no reason to believe Sanskrit is not an Indo-European language.

Check.

-I do not believe the old Vedic timelines set down by the early Orientalist.

Check. I think it is far older and longer.

-I do believe that Hinduism is indigenous to India.

Check.

-I don't know much. Of the scholars I have read on this subject. I tend to think Klaus K. Klostermaier (who clearly rejects AIT) and Gavin Flood from Oxford, (Who gives all sides of the argument) makes the most sense.

Note to self: read up.

-I believe system of thought of the early Orientalism smacks of Imperialist attitudes. These bias repeatedly-surface in the field of Indian studies.

Check.

-AIT has been shown to be false.

Check.

-AMT is just a hypothesis.

AMT?

 

[Chewbarker1054]

Amt Aryan migration theory
Gavin Flood is a great bloke was my lecturer when I was at the University of Wales Lampeter

 

[Jainarayan]

Thanks. The AMT smacks of a "kinder gentler" version of the AIT, unless the migration was in trickles, going both ways, over many milennia. After all, how is it that Turkish and Mongolian are in the same language family, spanning the distance of central Asia if people don't move around? Celtic and Greek too.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Riverwolf;2952645]That the Black Sea was smaller at one point? No... pun intended, but that's pretty well set in stone! :biglaugh:

Ok

So, they've actually said so? Where?

In the Oxford Dictionary for Sanskrit to English by the Boden chair of Sanskrit, And Menier Williams at the royal Asiatic society meeting in Bangalore.
Max Muller in his translations.

Ill get sources once i have my book come in.

Okay.

Thing is, the northernmost part of ancient Persia was VERY close to where the Proto-Indo-Europeans were thought to have lived.

Plus, Persia didn't include South India.

Aryavarta is believed to Included all of current India and Persia.

Well, we don't listen to the historians of the past; we listen to the ones today. A hundred years from now, they should likewise ignore current ones and listen to historians then.

If we did not listen to the historians in the past, then why do we keep to the view of a Aryan Race and a Indo-European language.

I know Arya means noble; I was referring to your interpretation.

Arya means noble, any language spoken by Aryans are noble language, its common sense, if Arya meant race, it would have been a specific language.

Aryan language pretty much refers either to Vedic Sanskrit itself, from what I understand.

Does Vadic Sanskrit anywhere refer itself as a Language used by Aryans?

I don't. Still, when I see things like "Unleash the Power Within", that sends all kinds of red flags, especially when the "donate" button is HUGE, impossible to miss, with the tagline "Support the cause". This is especially jarring when an internet entertainer has a donation bar, but it's small and tucked away in the corner.

That up to you, as i said you don't have to donate to read the articles, which i think you did not do.

Satya Vidya "True Knowledge" is, in itself, a deep concept that would probably take a few essays to explain. In addition, there'd need to be books' worth of essays explaining what Satya Vidya is not, and why.

In addition, different people are going to have different ideas as to what Satya Vidya is. Sure, you could say "whatever's in the Vedas", but they were composed in a language that's so old that it's literally impossible to translate into English accurately.

The argument is not about the name of the website, its about its content.

But clearly you did not read any articles I gave, but that your choice.

Maybe it helps me a bit because i can speak Hindi, and reading it i can make out a few words. I can see the difficulty in translations in English.

That is more the reason i would never trust a English explanation of the Sanskrit Word done by a person who cant even read or speak Sanskrit or even Hindi. Such as What Arya means, or A English explanation of where and when the Vedas were written.

The people who speak Sanskrit and Hindi who do translations are more trustworthy, but again their lack of experience in English brings the problem of the actual intent and meaning of the Sanskrit Word once translated.

I think Sanskrit it self is a Language that safely can be said to be native to Aryavarta (Not India), in saying that then if you want to call it Indo-European i see no problem.
But then the question of a Race that invaded India, becomes false, because if Sanskrit is Part of Indo-European Languages, why does it have similarity to South Indian Languages which are believed to be non Indo European.

The discrepancy in the Indo-European language theory is that Sanskrit has also similar words to Chinese, Japanese, Thai and other languages. So does that Make Sanskrit Indo-Chinese and Indo-Japanese as well.

The Indo-European thing is all designed to undermine the Sanskrit Language.

Traditionally, Sanskrit is not a Language of one Race or one people of one area of the World, it is not a Language of any one type of people.
I quite adhere to this.

 

[Jainarayan]

The discrepancy in the Indo-European language theory is that Sanskrit has also similar words to Chinese, Japanese, Thai and other languages. So does that Make Sanskrit Indo-Chinese and Indo-Japanese as well.

The Indo-European thing is all designed to undermine the Sanskrit Language.

No discrepancy whatsoever. Languages that are in close geographic proximity borrow vocabulary. Japanese has many English loanwords, but they are not related languages; Japanese has many Chinese loanwords, but they are not related; Vietnamese has many Chinese words, but they are not related. Japanese and English are not in close proximity geographically, but nowadays, languages travel via 747s.

Why should Sanskrit be undermined by the Indo-European "thing"? To what end? The corpus of Sanskrit literature probably outweighs Greek and Latin literature combined. Sanskrit was the model for linking all the other languages that became the Indo-European family. Sanskrit was held up as the gold standard. No credible scholars deny this.

 

[Riverwolf]

The Indo-European thing is all designed to undermine the Sanskrit Language.

Honestly, I don't understand why.

As I said before, it makes Sanskrit all the more special, because it represents the oldest and almost the last of the Indo-European languages still widely used as a Sacred Language.

From what I understand, Ancient Greek is just nightmarish, I don't know if the ancient Celtic language survived Rome's conquest, (and speaking of which) Latin is used as a Sacred Language for a religion that's not Roman, and I don't know if the others really survived much at all.

 

[nameless]

Japanese has many Chinese loanwords, but they are not related; Vietnamese has many Chinese words, but they are not related

what relations does sanskirt has with indo-european languages that which is not found between chinese and japanese/vietnamese?

 

[lone wolf]

i have a question
if hinduism was brought to india by invaders, what about all the sacred sites located on the indian subcontinent?
sanskrit , it is said, is the language of the gods
mount kailash has always been the abode of the great god shiva, did he live in europe or elsewhere previously?
the himalayan mountains, the region where yogis, rishis, ascetics have always existed
what can be more sacred to hinduism than the himalayan mountains?
where did ganga mata descend?
this land is obviously sacred!!!
the great rishis have given us the vedas, do not forget that
the root of vedic civilization lies in india, perhaps a long time ago vedic civilization was present all over the globe, but with time that has changed, and only the root survives

the birth place of lord krishna, the birth place of lord rama and countless other sacred sites, why all on the indian sub continent? this is obviously the root!! the place where it started
sanskrit the language of the gods, and the gods descended upon the indian subcontinent

why has hinduism survived in india even after so much onslaught by buffoonish invaders? because the people here are at the root, they have the benefit of being near these sacred mystical sites

how can you say that hinduism was brought to india?
the gods themselves descended upon this holy land
please show some humility!

 

[Jainarayan]

what relations does sanskirt has with indo-european languages that which is not found between chinese and japanese/vietnamese?

The morphology and syntax of Sanskrit and other IE langueages are consistent across the board, reconstructing backwards. The bulk of the vocabulary are cognate, meaning they can be reconstructed backwards to a common root.

Japanese is a language isolate, meaning that it has no known relatives. Chinese is part of the Sino-Tibetan language family. Vietnamese is in the Mon-Khmer language family. None of those are in any way related, or can be proven to be related. IE languages can, and have been proven to be related. Linguistics is a study of mine for years.